The internet was founded on the idea of routing around damage. How do we route around the cancer that ICANN is becoming?
You really should check out OpenNIC (http://www.opennic.unrated.net/). It's a (seemingly) democratic organization that recognizes the ICANN root, legitimate alternate roots, and its own namespace. What this means is that you can join immediately, your DNS won't be "broken," and you can have a say in how the DNS namespace will be organized. I've only recently signed up, so I don't know yet whether this is the solution, but at least I feel like I'm no longer part of the problem.
P.S. The astute reader will note that I have registered "mozhon.net" in the ICANN root. I can only say that it was done some time ago, before I understood my options. I will not renew it.
There is no real need to "give back" to the open source community. That's the whole idea of giving it away. It would be similar to someone who authors novels, manuals, or other books and then gives them away for nothing. Obviously, if they cared about making money for themselves, they wouldn't give it away.
I'm not really sure what you meant by this. I don't know if this is the argument you use so you can feel good about taking from the community without returning anything, or if you're trying to posit the idea that we should punish these poor naive idealists by withholding our support, the better to show them the error of their ways.
I guess I'll just try to refute your statement. You are not obligated to give anything to the open source community. Nobody who writes free software demands this of you. To desire to return kindness with kindness, though, is a noble intention, and marks you as an honest person. People who contribute to the open source community do so for personal reasons, and apparently because they value something higher than the pursuit of money. This is not irresponsible or reckless behavior, and does not require correcting. Because money is a thing necessary for life in this world at this time, money can be an appropriate way to express gratitude to an open source programmer.
I don't think I expressed anything terribly profound there. And, to bring this back on topic, the original question was never "Am I obligated to find jobs for these open source bastards?", it was: "Is it appropriate to solicit open source programmers for work on closed source projects?"
P.S. skrowl, you really do seem to have a disdain for open source programmers. Am I wong about this? Do you care to clarify your point?
Why not use something like this to get rid of TLDs altogether?
You're right, of course. Under this scheme, the "." in "debian.org" becomes just another character. It could just as easily be called "Debian", as you suggested.
But I think, in a truly global namespace, there is still a need for hierarchy. How would one distinguish between the domain registered by the Debian operating system, and that of the Debian Brewery in Bumfarg, Germany (I made that up)? A hierarchy of sorts could, I suppose, be enforced by one's choice of nameserver. Consider:
Debian (the operating system) registers its nameserver in some unique way -- i.e., it indicates "we are Debian the operating system, not the brewery in Germany"
the Debian Brewery in Germany registers in a likewise fashion (with some central authority that is aware of both)
a third-party nameserver organizes the two entries into a hierarchical namespace that makes some logical sense: Debian the OS is put in debian.linux.os, and Debian the brewery is put in debian.beer.ge
another third-party nameserver might place the same entries in debian.comp.us and debian.breweries.worldwide
as a user of the system, I choose a nameserver that organizes the namespace in a way that makes sense to me -- maybe I want to resolve "slashdot", "debian", and "intel" with minimal hassle, so I choose the nameserver that places them all in ".computers"
This seems like an infinitely better system to me. No publisher chooses his own name, the "nameserver" handles that role. Nameservers which come up with a useful hierarchy flourish because they are used most often. However, as a publisher, I can no longer tell somebody: "Check out my website at 'debian.org'", because the name of the site will vary depending on the user's nameserver. Maybe now he has to say "check out my site at what ACME Nameserver calls 'debian.org'." Maybe this isn't a bad thing, and maybe it would evolve into a single hierarchy that makes good sense to almost everybody.
I'm very interested in talking with somebody about working all of this out. You can e-mail me at "marc at mozhon dot net" if you want to continue the discussion outside this forum.
Time to bypass ICANN, the Department of Commerce, and any other organization that thinks they can artificially create scarcity where no such scarcity exists. There is NO technical reason why there can't be MILLIONS of TLD's.
You are right. You are absolutely right. ICANN has become that "damage" on the Internet that must be "routed around." I think your solution, though, just replaces one group of greedy bastards with another. Be very cautious of anybody who "volunteers" to serve as the new root server out of "kindred feelings" with the "open source community." They will become the next ICANN.
We need a solution that is uncorruptible, or more nearly so. I envision P2P file-sharing (Gnutella, or the like) to replace root servers, with digitally-signed digests of records to ensure uniqueness and authenticity. The only central resource in this scheme is the body that "signs" the domain record to verify it's authenticity.
I think it would work like this:
I want to go to "www.debian.org"
I create a digest (using central authority's public key) of the word "debian.org"
I look on Gnutella for a file called "[digest].ns" (or whatever)
Inside the file, I find a digitally-signed NS record (signed by the central authority's private key)
I check the signature and, if it matches, I trust the result
From there things progress as in normal DNS. The only problem I see is the possibility that a 'leet haxor could create a bogus "[digest].ns" record for debian.org. He wouldn't be able to sign it, so I can know not to trust it, but I would still have wasted the time of retrieving the file. I imagine that a number of "trusted sources" will evolve which check for authenticity before they cache/host a ".ns" file; in this way, bogus records would not propogate throught the net. Of course, this is all automated with a patched local nameserver-- I wouldn't actually do the NS lookup manually.
What do you think? Am I on the right track? My scheme still has a central authority, but it seems that it is one with less incentive for financial gain. SOMEBODY MOD UP THIS THREAD, please, or a similar one, so we can have a little debate on the subject.
With a company behind it (MS or Other), their reputation is on the line. If I do discover a backdoor in my open source product, who do I hold accountable?
How exactly does one go about "holding Microsoft accountable?" I assume that you mean accountable for any damage you might suffer as a result of the backdoor. Well, didn't you read the disclaimer in the fine print of their licensing contract:
"Microsoft makes no claim, express or implied, as to the merchantability of this product, or to its fitness for any purpose..." (or some such nonsense)
Now, maybe Microsoft can't cover their ass in the case of a hole they deliberately planted in the software, but-- short of maybe the U.S. government-- who in this world has the financial clout to duke it out with Microsoft in a court of law? (Make no mistake, you *will* have to prove your case in court to see dime one from Microsoft.) I'm afraid this idea of "holding Microsoft accountable" for their crappy software is just a pipe dream.
And as for Microsoft's reputation as a warranty of quality and security, this is just so obviously not the case that I won't even dignify it with a response.
This latest step from Microsoft is nothing new: re-writing a competitor's application and bundling it with the OS. But it seems to me that the computer industry, and Microsoft's position in it, has changed somewhat since the IE/Netscape fueds. At first blush, I accepted that Microsoft was just behaving like any other (unethical) company faced with the product of dwindling sales: do whatever is necessary to get people to throw away your old product and buy your new one.
But then, I thought about it a little more. People don't buy Windows for its features. They "buy" it because it comes pre-installed on their new computers. They buy new computers because they can't bear the fact that their neighbor has a shiny new Pentium 12, while they're stuck chugging away on a ratchety old Pentium 11. The unholy marriage between Microsoft and computer manufacturers seems to work in this way: MS releases a more bloated OS with a higher number every few months, so computer makers can tell their customers that they have to upgrade; computer makers, in return, install only Microsoft on the computers they sell. Now, I'll grant you that both parties need to be able to talk about "improved features" in the new software to make this upgrade sound legitimate, but the consumers are chomping at the bit for an excuse to buy something new, so they don't need much convincing. All of this new bundled software that Microsoft is talking about sounds like overkill.
It's overkill because all MS really needs to do is release something that wastes more system resources to keep computer makers happy. They could say something about "improved Object Brokering," "better XML support," and add some splashy eye candy and moving icons, and that's all a user needs to convince him to upgrade. But, by bundling all these rip-offs of third-party applications, they piss off one other very important segment of the industry who has been doggishly loyal since day one: the third-party developers. Assuming that Windows has not only bundled their generic HP CD Creator with Windows, but has also made it a "shocking experience" (a la Real Player) for a user to attempt to install the real HP CD Creator, how supportive of MS is HP likely to be in the future? Do you suppose that Adobe is taking a closer look now at their business relationship with MS? Maybe putting together a "Plan B" as we speak? It seems like Microsoft is shooting themselves in the collective foot.
Now, MS has proven itself quite adept at making money, so I have to assume that they have given all of this more careful thought than I have. So, would anybody care to hazard a guess: What does Microsoft know that I don't?
Slashdot Mirror
The internet was founded on the idea of routing around damage. How do we route around the cancer that ICANN is becoming?
You really should check out OpenNIC (http://www.opennic.unrated.net/). It's a (seemingly) democratic organization that recognizes the ICANN root, legitimate alternate roots, and its own namespace. What this means is that you can join immediately, your DNS won't be "broken," and you can have a say in how the DNS namespace will be organized. I've only recently signed up, so I don't know yet whether this is the solution, but at least I feel like I'm no longer part of the problem.
P.S. The astute reader will note that I have registered "mozhon.net" in the ICANN root. I can only say that it was done some time ago, before I understood my options. I will not renew it.
There is no real need to "give back" to the open source community. That's the whole idea of giving it away. It would be similar to someone who authors novels, manuals, or other books and then gives them away for nothing. Obviously, if they cared about making money for themselves, they wouldn't give it away.
I'm not really sure what you meant by this. I don't know if this is the argument you use so you can feel good about taking from the community without returning anything, or if you're trying to posit the idea that we should punish these poor naive idealists by withholding our support, the better to show them the error of their ways.
I guess I'll just try to refute your statement. You are not obligated to give anything to the open source community. Nobody who writes free software demands this of you. To desire to return kindness with kindness, though, is a noble intention, and marks you as an honest person. People who contribute to the open source community do so for personal reasons, and apparently because they value something higher than the pursuit of money. This is not irresponsible or reckless behavior, and does not require correcting. Because money is a thing necessary for life in this world at this time, money can be an appropriate way to express gratitude to an open source programmer.
I don't think I expressed anything terribly profound there. And, to bring this back on topic, the original question was never "Am I obligated to find jobs for these open source bastards?", it was: "Is it appropriate to solicit open source programmers for work on closed source projects?"
P.S. skrowl, you really do seem to have a disdain for open source programmers. Am I wong about this? Do you care to clarify your point?
Why not use something like this to get rid of TLDs altogether?
You're right, of course. Under this scheme, the "." in "debian.org" becomes just another character. It could just as easily be called "Debian", as you suggested.
But I think, in a truly global namespace, there is still a need for hierarchy. How would one distinguish between the domain registered by the Debian operating system, and that of the Debian Brewery in Bumfarg, Germany (I made that up)? A hierarchy of sorts could, I suppose, be enforced by one's choice of nameserver. Consider:
This seems like an infinitely better system to me. No publisher chooses his own name, the "nameserver" handles that role. Nameservers which come up with a useful hierarchy flourish because they are used most often. However, as a publisher, I can no longer tell somebody: "Check out my website at 'debian.org'", because the name of the site will vary depending on the user's nameserver. Maybe now he has to say "check out my site at what ACME Nameserver calls 'debian.org'." Maybe this isn't a bad thing, and maybe it would evolve into a single hierarchy that makes good sense to almost everybody.
I'm very interested in talking with somebody about working all of this out. You can e-mail me at "marc at mozhon dot net" if you want to continue the discussion outside this forum.
MarcTime to bypass ICANN, the Department of Commerce, and any other organization that thinks they can artificially create scarcity where no such scarcity exists. There is NO technical reason why there can't be MILLIONS of TLD's.
You are right. You are absolutely right. ICANN has become that "damage" on the Internet that must be "routed around." I think your solution, though, just replaces one group of greedy bastards with another. Be very cautious of anybody who "volunteers" to serve as the new root server out of "kindred feelings" with the "open source community." They will become the next ICANN.
We need a solution that is uncorruptible, or more nearly so. I envision P2P file-sharing (Gnutella, or the like) to replace root servers, with digitally-signed digests of records to ensure uniqueness and authenticity. The only central resource in this scheme is the body that "signs" the domain record to verify it's authenticity.
I think it would work like this:
From there things progress as in normal DNS. The only problem I see is the possibility that a 'leet haxor could create a bogus "[digest].ns" record for debian.org. He wouldn't be able to sign it, so I can know not to trust it, but I would still have wasted the time of retrieving the file. I imagine that a number of "trusted sources" will evolve which check for authenticity before they cache/host a ".ns" file; in this way, bogus records would not propogate throught the net. Of course, this is all automated with a patched local nameserver-- I wouldn't actually do the NS lookup manually.
What do you think? Am I on the right track? My scheme still has a central authority, but it seems that it is one with less incentive for financial gain. SOMEBODY MOD UP THIS THREAD, please, or a similar one, so we can have a little debate on the subject.
I will read follow-ups with interest.
MarcWith a company behind it (MS or Other), their reputation is on the line. If I do discover a backdoor in my open source product, who do I hold accountable?
How exactly does one go about "holding Microsoft accountable?" I assume that you mean accountable for any damage you might suffer as a result of the backdoor. Well, didn't you read the disclaimer in the fine print of their licensing contract:
Now, maybe Microsoft can't cover their ass in the case of a hole they deliberately planted in the software, but-- short of maybe the U.S. government-- who in this world has the financial clout to duke it out with Microsoft in a court of law? (Make no mistake, you *will* have to prove your case in court to see dime one from Microsoft.) I'm afraid this idea of "holding Microsoft accountable" for their crappy software is just a pipe dream.
And as for Microsoft's reputation as a warranty of quality and security, this is just so obviously not the case that I won't even dignify it with a response.
This latest step from Microsoft is nothing new: re-writing a competitor's application and bundling it with the OS. But it seems to me that the computer industry, and Microsoft's position in it, has changed somewhat since the IE/Netscape fueds. At first blush, I accepted that Microsoft was just behaving like any other (unethical) company faced with the product of dwindling sales: do whatever is necessary to get people to throw away your old product and buy your new one.
But then, I thought about it a little more. People don't buy Windows for its features. They "buy" it because it comes pre-installed on their new computers. They buy new computers because they can't bear the fact that their neighbor has a shiny new Pentium 12, while they're stuck chugging away on a ratchety old Pentium 11. The unholy marriage between Microsoft and computer manufacturers seems to work in this way: MS releases a more bloated OS with a higher number every few months, so computer makers can tell their customers that they have to upgrade; computer makers, in return, install only Microsoft on the computers they sell. Now, I'll grant you that both parties need to be able to talk about "improved features" in the new software to make this upgrade sound legitimate, but the consumers are chomping at the bit for an excuse to buy something new, so they don't need much convincing. All of this new bundled software that Microsoft is talking about sounds like overkill.
It's overkill because all MS really needs to do is release something that wastes more system resources to keep computer makers happy. They could say something about "improved Object Brokering," "better XML support," and add some splashy eye candy and moving icons, and that's all a user needs to convince him to upgrade. But, by bundling all these rip-offs of third-party applications, they piss off one other very important segment of the industry who has been doggishly loyal since day one: the third-party developers. Assuming that Windows has not only bundled their generic HP CD Creator with Windows, but has also made it a "shocking experience" (a la Real Player) for a user to attempt to install the real HP CD Creator, how supportive of MS is HP likely to be in the future? Do you suppose that Adobe is taking a closer look now at their business relationship with MS? Maybe putting together a "Plan B" as we speak? It seems like Microsoft is shooting themselves in the collective foot.
Now, MS has proven itself quite adept at making money, so I have to assume that they have given all of this more careful thought than I have. So, would anybody care to hazard a guess: What does Microsoft know that I don't?